For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
And therein is why you will never know - like most - you haven't the humility to be granted the wisdom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Proof of my higher intelligence! As if a creator would only speak to you and your kind, sheesh! Quit sucking yourself!
You really do suck yourself, don't you?attofishpi wrote:And therein is why you will never know - like most - you haven't the humility to be granted the wisdom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Proof of my higher intelligence! As if a creator would only speak to you and your kind, sheesh! Quit sucking yourself!
And what's projecting 'its'?attofishpi wrote:That there is an intelligent 'being' projecting our reality.
What do you mean more!?If the sage indicates more to me in relation to you i will advise.
Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holly Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists, then so does God, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.Arising_uk wrote:What do you mean by 'God' when you say this?thedoc wrote: This is wrong, there are a few of us who have reasonably good evidence that God exists, so these few do know that God exists.
surreptitious57 wrote:Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith
Croc of SHIT
Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain
All agnostics are atheistic
Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain
Made up on the spot
Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain
No such thing
Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain
A deluded moron
I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.surreptitious57 wrote:There is no such thing as reasonably good evidence for the existence of Godthedoc wrote:This is wrong there are a few of us who have reasonably good evidence that God existssurreptitious57 wrote:
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith
Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain
Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain
However everyone is ultimately agnostic because no one knows for certain whether or not God exists
So gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are absolutely certain in their belief but not in their knowledge
ken wrote:
Are you are rational person?
I am both rational and irrational but I tend more towards the former
Would a rational person believe in or say anything that was not true?
Belief is an article of faith which requires no evidence or proof to justify it so is not something a rational person would reference
However they could say something that was not true but that could be because knowledge of the thing in question was ambiguous
What makes sense to you?
That which is demonstrably true but also something which I can understand to be demonstrably true as well
And whatever makes sense to you the rational person should the rest of us others accept it as the truth also?
Whether others wish to accept demonstrable truth or not is a matter for them not me as it is beyond my control
I stopped believing in God when I was forty six but I do not actually care whether or not he existsthedoc wrote:
I am sorry for you that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the
existence of God but unbelievers will deny all evidence in spite of the strength of that evidence
Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit whenthedoc wrote:
Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit and I
reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists then so does God since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God
That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof. For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it; and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.thedoc wrote:I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.
You are not fooling anyone with the persistence of this childish defence.Immanuel Can wrote:That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof. For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it; and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.thedoc wrote:I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.
Why can't they see this themselves? After all, in any other subject matter they would catch their own illogic immediately. But they don't, because Atheism has everything to do with will.
As the axiom goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Immanuel Can wrote:That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof.thedoc wrote:I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.
For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it;
Sorry IC, but there is nothing that necessarily proves there is a god, there are only ever things that mere mortals attribute as those that their vision of god might be responsible. In other words, mere mortals don't have all the answers as to how all the things they understand that exist came to exist, so the default solution, is that they must be the hand of a god, it's easier that way, because in truth mankind is far too young to understand the truth of everything's existence, as the quest to know these things started thousands of years ago, probably many more. Individual humans live to what, 100 years if they are extremely lucky?
and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.
Both sides equally can't prove either way. Yes, I've noticed you've used the word "evidence" throughout, but it's circumstantial and "circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." --wikipedia--
Science would be absolutely nowhere if it relied on circumstantial evidence rather than direct.
Why can't they see this themselves? After all, in any other subject matter they would catch their own illogic immediately. But they don't, because Atheism has everything to do with will.
As the axiom goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
And fools only see what they 'want' to see, which is that which servers their purpose, that which suits them.
There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of your gods existence. If so name it.
But there are other explanations for such events? To me it seems as tho' you are just confirming what you believed already.thedoc wrote:Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holly Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists, then so does God, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.
Two words in that sentence are entirely misplacedImmanuel Can wrote:
For clearly there is lots of evidence for God
The fact that all human knowledge of the world is inductive means that there is no such thing as "necessary proof" for anything. There is only stronger or weaker evidence that a particular belief is rational or warranted. The question to be resolved is only how strong the evidence in this case is.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry IC, but there is nothing that necessarily proves there is a god, there are only ever things that mere mortals attribute as those that their vision of god might be responsible.
If by "prove" you mean by way of absolute certainty, the same is true of ANY belief a person can hold. But it's not equal. The reason it isn't is that whereas Theism looks for indicative evidence, Atheism has no evidence for its belief at all. The person who says, "I think there may be a God" can go looking for evidence; but how does an Atheist find evidence for the "nothing" in which He believes? So while this does not conclude the issue, it makes the Atheist's epistemological task much more difficult than anything the Theist would have to do.Both sides equally can't prove either way.
This is the problem with taking definitions off wikis: sometimes they're a bit of a hack. In this case, there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference." The author of the definition is simply naive.Yes, I've noticed you've used the word "evidence" throughout, but it's circumstantial and "circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." --wikipedia--
"Direct" what? "Direct evidence"? But Theism has that. Atheists won't accept it anyway.Science would be absolutely nowhere if it relied on circumstantial evidence rather than direct.
As Descartes has demonstrated, there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence" of anything -- not even that the external or empirical world exists at all. To expect it outside of mathematics and such closed systems of symbols would simply be to betray a lack of understanding of how human knowledge actually works. We need to ask instead for what the relative strength of the evidence on each side is, and to weigh it for probability.There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of your gods existence. If so name it.
